Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Best Develeloper Of This Generation

71 replies to this topic

Poll: It's between Rockstar & Naughty Dog (69 member(s) have cast votes)

Which is your favorite?

  1. Rockstar Games (RDR / GTA IV & V / LA Noire / Midnight Club LA) (54 votes [78.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 78.26%

  2. Naughty Dog (Uncharted 1-3 / The Last of Us) (15 votes [21.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.74%

Vote Guests cannot vote
Finn 7 five 11
  • Finn 7 five 11

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#61

Posted 08 October 2013 - 07:53 AM

NAUGHTY DOG IS OVERRATED.

I hate the term overrated, because it is used for every single thing that is at the top of its category, If Naughty Dog Is overrated, so is Rockstar.

 

 

Personally I find it hard to choose which developer is best of the generation. I mean Rockstar should get it because of the sheer effort put into their games, but at the same time, I have actually enjoyed Naughty Dog games more than anything this generation, If R* can make better shooting mechanics i'll be a lot happier, the combat mechanics are good, but aiming still feels off, everything else is pretty good in my opinion.


rotipuj
  • rotipuj

    That's all I got

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2009

#62

Posted 08 October 2013 - 03:03 PM

I enjoyed almost every game R* put out this gen. I didn't like the Uncharted series much. They are much too overrated. I f*cking loved The Last of Us and it's my game of the generation. So my vote goes to Rockstar for making good games this gen. I'm not voting for ND because just one amazing game doesn't make them the better developer. They are still really good though.


Andreas
  • Andreas

    GTA V/Online Forum Leader

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 27 May 2012
  • Austria
  • Best Avatar 2013
    Best New Member 2012
    Contribution Award [GTA V]

#63

Posted 08 October 2013 - 04:55 PM

I haven't played a single game from Naughty dog. And I haven't played a lot of games this generation, either. So, I can not really judge which developer is the best. Rockstar is definitely one of the better ones out there, though.
 

LA Noire wasn't made by Rockstar.
MP3 was a flop and you could see that with sales when it released. ( Don't disrespect the fans and that won't happen again )
GTA V half finish game with content taken out.

You are right about L.A. Noire. It was a Team Bondi project, but still, Rockstar helped in the development a lot, and they have published the game, which is why they got all the rights shortly after Team Bondi went bankrupt (though, they revived some time later, if I remember correctly).

Every time you "discuss" abour GTA or other Rockstar titles, you mention that Max Payne 3 was a flop. How the hell was the game a "flop"? It sold less copies than Take-Two expected (250 million dollar revenue; but they expected $300 million in fiscal year 2013), but you said yourself that judging a game by its sales, GTAV and its $1 billion revenue in first three days, is just idiotic. You can say the exact same thing in this case as well. MP3's sales were underwhelming, although it sold pretty well on Steam, a PC games platform with over 50 million users, but you can not judge the game this way. You have to play it yourself, and I highly doubt you ever gave the game a try. I purchased Max Payne a couple of weeks ago for PC, I played through the entire singleplayer story-line, and I must say that it's f*cking amazing and really underrated.

As for GTAV, I admit I haven't played it yet, I'm a PC gamer, thus I didn't even have the opportunity to purchase the game. I am also well aware of the fact that Rockstar advertised content in the singleplayer gameplay trailer, which was taken out to use it in multiplayer. But other than that, how is the game "unfinished"? Could you please elaborate a little more?
 

SA has more features then V. Better story since it has one protagonist, who uses computers in the 90s? What kind of criminal uses the stock market? Plus they had a Casino so no need for a stock market. Internet wasn't big back then or even out till the late 90's. Phones were use as phones. They didn't have internet or texts on phones. Hunting animals I will agree with. Casino Heist ( try again ), OH boy a dog ( They got more customization for clothes and cars ).
[...]
GTA SA doesn't even need those features and it wouldn't make sense seeing the time period.

Congratulations, you have successfully contradicted yourself several times within a single post.

Seriously, though, is features all you want in a game called Grand Theft Auto? Is that what the game series is about? The quantity of features?

No, it is not. It never was and it never will be. Honestly, I think Rockstar set the bar far too high with San Andreas, exactly because of people like you who think that the more half assed features there are, the better the game is. It has been almost a decade since the game was released, there were four more GTAs since then plus two add-ons, yet people still worship San Andreas like it's the game of the millenium. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but seriously, you ruin the experience for yourself every single time, because a new title didn't met the standards a high and almighty game had in your opinion. And all that because of some f*cking features. People like you are comparing each new installment of a particular game series to their favourtie game of the series, and then when it doesn't surpass it in every possible way, they complain about it. And the funny thing is it's their fault actually, not the fault of the developer!

And another thing that bothers me a little is the fact that you keep saying "San Andreas' story is better because it has only one protagonist", which is a fallacious statement. Multiple protagonists do have a positive impact on the storyline, because there is more than just one way to play missions, and it is even better if there are multiple endings. It's perfection if every action of each of the protagonists changes the course of the story, which is not the case though with V, as far as I know. Still, the fact that you can control multiple characters means there is more variety in missions. And if you re-play the game, then various of missions can have a different course, which is a good thing, because that way, you avoid the feeling that you know everything about the game. It increases the replay-value substantially.

Regarding your question about what kind of criminal would use stock market, I could ask you what kind of criminal is working with a blind man who owns a casino. That question would be just as pointless. One word: money. Regardless if you're criminal or not, if there is a way to earn money, in this case the stock market, you will very likely do that, especially if it's somewhat safe.

SA doesn't need the features Ace listed, right? So, why does V urgently need as many of them as possible? Just because it's a newer game does not mean it is supposed to surpass all of its predecessors in terms of quantity. Personally, I'd say having less features that are implemented well is better than having a lot of features that are half assed and uninteresting.
 

GTA V map feels more real but GTA SA had 3 different countryside and cities. No cover system isn't really needed.

San Andreas had three cities and countryside, woods, a desert, and so forth, but so what? The cities are all kind of small. Los Santos is the biggest city in the game, and with about 3 square miles, it equals the size of GTA III Liberty City. LS felt small but its detail was okay for its time. But I always thought that San Fierro felt like it was rushed. I don't know what it was, if it's the size, the fact that it's a fairly empty city with no detail whatsoever, or if it's something else. Las Venturas was okay, in my opinion, and a good place to be. GTAV's Los Santos is fairly about the size of GTA IV Liberty City (pure land-area of LC is 3.45 sqm; and 6.25 sqm if water between islands is considered). I would choose the big city over the three small cities.

Last but not least, the cover-system isn't needed, but it is a very nice feature and adds a lot to the game. IV was the first game of the series that introduced a proper cover-system, and it was a nice addition. To be honest, I couldn't even imagine a new GTA game without it.
  • Miamivicecity and Ermac. like this

Miamivicecity
  • Miamivicecity

    Get Love Fisted

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2007
  • Australia
  • Best Member In An Official Group 2012

#64

Posted 09 October 2013 - 12:19 AM

Epic post and so true. Hats off to you sir.

nightwalker83
  • nightwalker83

    Don't mind me

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2004

#65

Posted 13 October 2013 - 02:47 AM

seriously? R* and Naughty are the only choices?

this poll sucks.

 

Bioware deserves to be in the running, as does Valve.

Bioware? I think the last game by them I played was Baldur's Gate II.


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "Not Santa's balls!"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#66

Posted 13 October 2013 - 07:17 PM

Bioware? I think the last game by them I played was Baldur's Gate II.

....ok?

 

you know they've made a lot of other games since then :pp


nightwalker83
  • nightwalker83

    Don't mind me

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2004

#67

Posted 13 October 2013 - 11:44 PM Edited by nightwalker83, 13 October 2013 - 11:44 PM.

 

Bioware? I think the last game by them I played was Baldur's Gate II.

....ok?

 

you know they've made a lot of other games since then :pp

 

I am sure they have but I can not think of any!


GetWoody
  • GetWoody

    Greedy Jew

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2011
  • United-States

#68

Posted 15 October 2013 - 06:39 AM

Rockstar, no doubt. ND haven't made a good game since the Jak and Daxter games. That being said, poll is a little unfair, seeing as other Xbox gamers likely haven't played (or even heard of) anything by Naughty Dog.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#69

Posted 15 October 2013 - 07:13 AM

Really? That's the choice? Rockstar or Naughty Dog? Not one of the other outstanding developers like Bethesda Game Studios, or Ubisoft Montreal, but Rockstar who have released a fair amount of sh*te over the years, and Naughty Dog, who have released very little and absolutely nothing cross-platform? 


WinterEdit
  • WinterEdit

    It was all just lying there!

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Sep 2013
  • Finland

#70

Posted 15 October 2013 - 07:43 AM Edited by WinterEdit, 15 October 2013 - 07:44 AM.

Naughty Dog.

 

Reasoning:

• I am a huge fan of both Uncharted and The Last of Us

• Their games are story-centered

• The Last of Us is my current all-time favorite game

• Marvelous linear games

• A lot to do (for linear games)

• The Last of Us...

 

Why didn't I choose R*?

Reasoning:

• Although a lot to do gameplay-wise, I like story games more

• Rockstar technically has done only one new big IP (Red Dead Redemption) in this generation, while ND has done both Uncharted and TLoU this gen.

 

Let's put it this way.

Rockstar is by far the best open-world game developer out there in my opinion, while Naughty Dog is probably the best linear game developer out there. If I wanted to say another awesome game developer, I'd say Ubisoft (Far Cry, Assassin's Creed, Watch Dogs). They are my second favorite mostly-open-world game developer.


Sneakerhead.
  • Sneakerhead.

    ☛✔Goals Achieved: 1/1☚

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2011
  • None

#71

Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:01 AM

Rockstar Games no doubt.  :r*:


UrbanTheEmcee
  • UrbanTheEmcee

    I'm that bada** n*gga yo moms warned you about.

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008

#72

Posted 17 October 2013 - 12:09 AM

I see a handful of people are upset that I didn't include more developers in the poll.

I apologize, but personally I didn't feel the need to. The highest rated/selling games this generation come from the developers I mentioned.

 

Valve)

 

Half Life 2? I think not. Boring game IMO. "IMO"

 

Team Fortress 2? Great Game, but who plays it. I played the game hardcore for like 6 months, and I always played with the same people. It's an overhyped cult following.

 

Portal 1 & 2 were both great, but nothing that pushed the genre forward.

 

The Left4Dead series is just a co-op Zombie cash in. Boring repetitive game.

 

 

Bethesda)

 

Fallout is a decent series, but if they never made another one who would cry over it.

 

Skyrim = Over Rated IMO. "IMO"

 

 

Bioware)

 

The only game I play from them is Mass Effect. Games like Dragon Age don't put you in the run for Developer of the Generation.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users